I wrote the below reply on a social networking site called BookFace or something along those lines. One of my friends, a poli sci student of Pakistani extraction, had come out in opposition against an investment agreement Canada was planning with China. I posted a series of replies, and then figured... hey, that could make a great overview on Canadian politicos!So, here goes, verbatim et literatim, enjoy.
Much
as I dislike Stephen Harper, free trade is not the reason. The world
is getting smaller, and I would be surprised if, in thirty years,
national borders hold any meaning whatever beyond the social construct
of "culture". If there WILL be any borders, they will be big,
supranational ones between power blocs (EU, NAFTA, Commonwealth, CIS,
etc) and not between nation-states as we know them today.
The
real problem with Stephen Harper is his agreement with, and endorsement
of, American aggression in the Middle East and elsewhere. Harper is
waging war for fun and profit. Not cool, dude.
But
think of the alternatives. Justin Trudeau is an annoying brat who
hasn't the foggiest idea of how the world works. He is obnoxious,
inexperienced, and utterly unqualified for the job he wishes to hold.
He is a locum history teacher, who has admitted to recreational drug
abuse in the presence of his two small children. He wants government
spending left, right, and centre, when we haven't the money to spend in
the first place. And most gallingly, he thinks that the name makes the
man, rather than vice versa. He thinks he's some sort of Canadian
Rockefeller.
Thomas
Mulcair shares Trudeau's spendomania. That's really his biggest
problem. The other problem is that under his tenure, the Canadian NDP
has returned to its roots, rather than Layton's softer "Liberals of the
Left" version. This might not sound like such a problem, until you
realise that the old NDP, as well as the new NDP, is Canada's answer to
the British Labour Party of the Fifties, rather than Labour of today.
Old Labour/NDP are both parties run by the working class (aka those who
are on their feet at work) for the working class. We are not working
class. We are middle class. I don't want the unions (especially not
Mafia-influenced unions like the Teamsters) running the show.
Otherwise, Mulcair is actually an honest man.
And
then there's Elizabeth May. The best and worst that can be said for
her is that she's a complete and utter nutbar. Not to say she's a
moron. Big difference. But because of her over-riding goal of
ecological activism, sustainability, carbon neutrality, or God knows
what the word for it is nowadays, she's willing to tank the Canadian
economy. Her ideas, although they may be solid ten, fifteen, or twenty
years down the line, are absolutely pie in the sky today. The problem
is that if you impose controls on companies so as to save the Earth upon
which you walk, you will make these companies bankrupt and thus lead
yourself straight into the mouth of destitution.
God's
honest truth is that the Liberals are THE party for Canada in times of
economic boom. We are not in a boom. We are in the throes of the Great
Recession, and the go-to party for depressions and recessions are the
Conservatives. Simple as that.
Sunday, September 14, 2014
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Scotland Independence Debate: My Impressions
All right. Now, not many of you would know this (except perhaps those who may know me from another life) but I am interested in the debate on Scotch separation from the United Kingdom. Strangely enough, I hold no fixed opinion on this except for some vague, idealistic concept that it would be good for what's left of the Empire to stay together and not fight amongst ourselves like so many toothless Mancunian football hooligans. So much for that.
Now, I find the British Labour Party plebeian and outre beyond belief. But Alex Salmond, together with his ship of fools, is the merest blackguard, the most common blatherskite, and the worst possible sort of wanker ever to grace the Parliament of Scotland. This is the arsehole that, through Imperial Decree, and out of petulant gall, established that universities in Scotland would be free for Scotchmen, free for Frenchmen, free for Dutchmen, in fact, free for damn near everyone except Englishmen! I think that if he suddenly went on telly with a shotgun and shot himself in his bloody great stupid gob, he'd be doing us all a big favour. I hate his guts. Fucking douchebag.
So, yesterday's debate was between the great paragon of the proletariat Alistair Darling, and Scotland's ugly, obese, smelly fish, Alex Salmond. And even if I didn't hate fuckface Salmond before I saw the thing, I fucking despise him now, just because of what he said. Darling, despite his proletarian-ness, came across as intelligent, reasonable, and a real darling. He was a lawyer before he sold his soul for a place in Parliament, that is, if he ever had one, and he proved that he still was every inch a competent lawyer.
Some background information: if Scotland separates, Salmond says, they will continue to use the pound, in a formal currency union with England. Several of the big-wigs in the central British government, located in Westminster, have alternately said that this will happen when pigs fly, when it will rain up rather than down, when the grass turns blue and the sky turns green, and when Birnam Wood comes to Dunsinane. Salmond has repeatedly ignored these hints, and stubbornly continues to believe that this is just pre-negotiation posturing.
The second part of the debate was where Darling shone. He asked Salmond the question that has always been on everyone's mind: what currency will Scotland use if the pound is not an option? Continuing to use the pound, Darling wisely said, was like insisting on a joint account with your ex even after you'd fucking divorced her. The pound doesn't belong to Scotland. Nor does it belong to England, Ireland, or Wales! It is property of the Crowns united. You can take your Crown back, Scotland, but the pound is community property... and if your ex-partners want to keep it... let them fuggin' keep it God damn it! Fucking Jesus Almighty!
Of course, Salmond's reply basically boiled down to the same thing a petulant six-year-old in the middle of a temper tantrum might say: namely, that the pound is an option, no ifs, ands, or buts. So Darling asked him to try something very difficult: to think, just for a short moment, of the possibility that maybe, just maybe, the Great Gobshite Salmond might be mistaken. Of course, Salmond had no reply. That's when the boos and head-shaking started.
The childish misbehaviour of Salmond eventually caused even super-calm, super-patient Darling to lose his cool and say that a six-year old could identify a nation's capital, flag, and currency, and that Salmond couldn't even manage the last one. At this point, Salmond said that the options were enumerated in some obscure government think tank report, but that he wasn't going to talk about that, but about what was best for Scotland. The question wasn't what's best for Scotland. The question was, what's plan B? What's plan C for that matter?
Darling continued to chip away at the smelly old fish for quite a while like this. He implied that because Salmond was so stupid as to not understand, he was going to take him on a process of elimination. The euro? No, says Salmond. A new Scottish currency? No, says Salmond. Unofficial use of the pound (which would tank both economies at once)? No comment, says Salmond, but I want what's best for Scotland. Fucking idiot.
In fact, all this bullshit reminds him, says Darling, of the time gobshite Salmond claimed to have a court decision saying that Scotland could automatically enter the EU no questions asked after independence. Where, people said, and sued Salmond's moron gallery to find out. Two years later, it transpired that there was no decision.
Honestly, I had no idea Darling would do so well. He essentially echoed my questions, and more or less in the same way I would have asked them, only he did it in a nicer way. Salmond still hadn't come up with anything by the time his cross-examination was over. Then again, he's a barrister. I should have known.
So then it's fuckhead Salmond's turn. Instead of asking pertinent questions like Darling did, his first two questions were in fact statements pointing at a few jokes made by British government people on slow days. The first was something like Scotland will have to drive on the right side of the road if they separate, and the second was something like Scotland will now be vulnerable to attack by aliens from outer space if they separate.
Haven't you ever heard of a joke before? says Darling. Well said. Alex, old boy, you're going to lose this one... now do us all a favour, old chap. Go in your father's barn, grab his fowling piece (you do know what a shotgun is, right Alex?), put it in your mouth or rectum or whatever that gaping hole in your face is, and pull the fucking trigger.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Putin... Godwin's Law incarnate?
Several months ago, Prince Charles, the future King of the United
Kingdom, made his personal opinion about the Russian President known to
the world, to wit: President Putin can be, in a number of ways, compared
to the former German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. Although there is an
informal logical law known as Godwin's Law that states that comparisons
to Hitler are fallacious if not proven otherwise, I believe that Prince
Charles has the truth on his side. Not because he went to my alma
mater; I believe myself to be unbiased in this regard.
Cambridge edumacation or not, the situation in Europe today almost precisely mirrors that of Europe in 1939. I will elaborate, but at least in politics, Putin can be compared to Hitler. First of all, it can be demonstrated that Germany in the Thirties and Russia in the New Tens have abused the letter of the law to crush political opposition. I won't give German examples because any fool can Google them... but there are Russian ones which almost directly parallel them.
For example, a speech by Putin included a statement to the effect that Russians need to help raise the birth rate, and that this was very important to the economy. Basically, Putin ordered Russians to fuck because it's good for business. So a "protest" was staged in a musaeum of biology, where several men and women proceeded to obey Putin's instructions to the letter and tape it so that it could be proven. The upshot of this was that some of the people involved, instead of being praised for their good humour, were arrested and imprisoned for indecent exposure. On the other hand, the people who made loud, public love in a fountain were neither arrested nor charged, because this did not carry a political message.
Similarly, Ukraine, which was, until recently, a Russian client state, was plagued by selective enforcement of laws. Specifically, price-gouging, kickbacks, and anti-competitive practices were committed and tolerated by the petrochemical-government complex; Julia Tymoshenko certainly took part in this, and may perhaps have been guilty as the Devil himself. This has to be viewed in a relative way, though. I don't like to quote sources or even use any beyond myself, but this is a special case: one of my mother's friends from university said, effectively, that kickbacks were standard operating procedure in the oil world, and its sine qua non. They happen in every conceivable form, and in every country: Russia and pre-revolutionary Iran weren't just in bed with Big Oil, they were having an Eyes Wide Shut-style orgy with it. "Environmental cleanup", my arse. "Service fee", my arse. "Facilitation fee", my motherfucking arse. Now, this lady should know because she has a PhD in petrochemical engineering and, in 1967, invented the oil sands extracting technique that we all know and love while washing the dishes (this message brought to you by Palmolive).
So yeah, Tymoshenko was in the pay of Big Oil. So was everyone else. Russkies, Ukies, everyone. The way it generally works is that in order to drill, you need to pay for a use-of-land permit. Because this is time-sensitive, you pay a facilitation fee. You get your drill set up, and then you get a visit by the permit man. Of course, the drill "isn't up to environmental standards", so you pay an environmental cleanup "estimate", with the balance (and it's always a large one) to be paid or returned to you theoretically after drilling, but practically when the sun rises in the West. You additionally pay the permit man another facilitation fee, so you can just start the god damn drill already. Then some state-owned corporation or other makes a request for tender. You submit a nice, low bid, which is rejected for being "inadequate" because there's no allowance for "losses/spoilage". You submit a bid higher by say 10%, changing nothing, and it gets accepted. Every year, unsurprisingly, there is an oil "spoilage" of exactly 10%, no more, no less. In addition to this, you pay a generous "export duty", cash only. You also pay a generous "import duty", cash only. And on top of both of these, you pay a very generous and tailored "facilitation fee", cash only.
Tymoshenko was likely on the receiving end of this, as chairwoman of a large oil firm. Other people in the Ukie government also received "facilitation payments". Perhaps not in oil, as Ukraine has none, but I suspect the wheat business is similar in its... idiosyncrasies. Oh God, I derailed this article, but what I'm trying to say is that she went to jail but a lot of others who participated in the same sort of thing didn't. And don't give me that bullshit that nobody knows who the others were... I'll lay you ten to one that "the others" includes the gentlemen who were on the bench. And I'll lay you a hundred or a thousand to one that the reason she was singled out in this way was because she was a proponent of increasing ties to the democratic, Western world.
So I mean that's how it goes. Then there's his push for a World War III. Even that mirrors World War II. Although Hitler and Putin both display markedly aggressive foreign policy (in Hitler's case, open, and in Putin's case, through covert influence of European terrorist groups), their Western counterparts (Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama) are very soft-spoken and reserved, and prefer to fight through diplomatic means only. Even though Hitler threw the first punch, the war was started by the Allies (specifically, Churchill). Also, popular opinion seems to vacillate between a more reserved, melancholic/phlegmatic leader (Obama is the latter, whereas Chamberlain was the former) and a choleric/sanguine one. So it just might happen that not only is Putin like Hitler in many ways, but the New Tens are like the Old Forties in many ways. Then there's Putin's constant xenophobic hatefests (much like Hitler's), and his views on Nineties Russia that so closely parallel Hitler's views on Weimar Germany.
Although in a way, Putin is more like Stavro Blofeld than like Hitler; he has charisma, and you can't help cheering for the old boy if only his damn agenda were better. His covert manipulation tactics smack of Blofeld, not so much of Hitler. Hitler liked his bed-leg and his knife; Putin can accomplish more with a few words and an epic judo throwdown. He's an insult to his family name, though: it is well known that Putin has blue blood of some sort. Perhaps a cadet branch of Moscow's noblesse de robe? Perhaps Ras-putin? Who truly knows? All I know is that a proper leader should be conservative. Not wishing a return to communist days.
Cambridge edumacation or not, the situation in Europe today almost precisely mirrors that of Europe in 1939. I will elaborate, but at least in politics, Putin can be compared to Hitler. First of all, it can be demonstrated that Germany in the Thirties and Russia in the New Tens have abused the letter of the law to crush political opposition. I won't give German examples because any fool can Google them... but there are Russian ones which almost directly parallel them.
For example, a speech by Putin included a statement to the effect that Russians need to help raise the birth rate, and that this was very important to the economy. Basically, Putin ordered Russians to fuck because it's good for business. So a "protest" was staged in a musaeum of biology, where several men and women proceeded to obey Putin's instructions to the letter and tape it so that it could be proven. The upshot of this was that some of the people involved, instead of being praised for their good humour, were arrested and imprisoned for indecent exposure. On the other hand, the people who made loud, public love in a fountain were neither arrested nor charged, because this did not carry a political message.
Similarly, Ukraine, which was, until recently, a Russian client state, was plagued by selective enforcement of laws. Specifically, price-gouging, kickbacks, and anti-competitive practices were committed and tolerated by the petrochemical-government complex; Julia Tymoshenko certainly took part in this, and may perhaps have been guilty as the Devil himself. This has to be viewed in a relative way, though. I don't like to quote sources or even use any beyond myself, but this is a special case: one of my mother's friends from university said, effectively, that kickbacks were standard operating procedure in the oil world, and its sine qua non. They happen in every conceivable form, and in every country: Russia and pre-revolutionary Iran weren't just in bed with Big Oil, they were having an Eyes Wide Shut-style orgy with it. "Environmental cleanup", my arse. "Service fee", my arse. "Facilitation fee", my motherfucking arse. Now, this lady should know because she has a PhD in petrochemical engineering and, in 1967, invented the oil sands extracting technique that we all know and love while washing the dishes (this message brought to you by Palmolive).
So yeah, Tymoshenko was in the pay of Big Oil. So was everyone else. Russkies, Ukies, everyone. The way it generally works is that in order to drill, you need to pay for a use-of-land permit. Because this is time-sensitive, you pay a facilitation fee. You get your drill set up, and then you get a visit by the permit man. Of course, the drill "isn't up to environmental standards", so you pay an environmental cleanup "estimate", with the balance (and it's always a large one) to be paid or returned to you theoretically after drilling, but practically when the sun rises in the West. You additionally pay the permit man another facilitation fee, so you can just start the god damn drill already. Then some state-owned corporation or other makes a request for tender. You submit a nice, low bid, which is rejected for being "inadequate" because there's no allowance for "losses/spoilage". You submit a bid higher by say 10%, changing nothing, and it gets accepted. Every year, unsurprisingly, there is an oil "spoilage" of exactly 10%, no more, no less. In addition to this, you pay a generous "export duty", cash only. You also pay a generous "import duty", cash only. And on top of both of these, you pay a very generous and tailored "facilitation fee", cash only.
Tymoshenko was likely on the receiving end of this, as chairwoman of a large oil firm. Other people in the Ukie government also received "facilitation payments". Perhaps not in oil, as Ukraine has none, but I suspect the wheat business is similar in its... idiosyncrasies. Oh God, I derailed this article, but what I'm trying to say is that she went to jail but a lot of others who participated in the same sort of thing didn't. And don't give me that bullshit that nobody knows who the others were... I'll lay you ten to one that "the others" includes the gentlemen who were on the bench. And I'll lay you a hundred or a thousand to one that the reason she was singled out in this way was because she was a proponent of increasing ties to the democratic, Western world.
So I mean that's how it goes. Then there's his push for a World War III. Even that mirrors World War II. Although Hitler and Putin both display markedly aggressive foreign policy (in Hitler's case, open, and in Putin's case, through covert influence of European terrorist groups), their Western counterparts (Neville Chamberlain and Barack Obama) are very soft-spoken and reserved, and prefer to fight through diplomatic means only. Even though Hitler threw the first punch, the war was started by the Allies (specifically, Churchill). Also, popular opinion seems to vacillate between a more reserved, melancholic/phlegmatic leader (Obama is the latter, whereas Chamberlain was the former) and a choleric/sanguine one. So it just might happen that not only is Putin like Hitler in many ways, but the New Tens are like the Old Forties in many ways. Then there's Putin's constant xenophobic hatefests (much like Hitler's), and his views on Nineties Russia that so closely parallel Hitler's views on Weimar Germany.
Although in a way, Putin is more like Stavro Blofeld than like Hitler; he has charisma, and you can't help cheering for the old boy if only his damn agenda were better. His covert manipulation tactics smack of Blofeld, not so much of Hitler. Hitler liked his bed-leg and his knife; Putin can accomplish more with a few words and an epic judo throwdown. He's an insult to his family name, though: it is well known that Putin has blue blood of some sort. Perhaps a cadet branch of Moscow's noblesse de robe? Perhaps Ras-putin? Who truly knows? All I know is that a proper leader should be conservative. Not wishing a return to communist days.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Silver bells... silver bells... it's election time in Toronto!
Mayor of Toronto. When people hear this, they think of a carrot-topped, morbidly obese, hard-working and hard-partying hulk of a man named Rob Ford. And they're right. Rob Ford has practically become a symbol, for better or worse, of Toronto. Ford jokes have become nothing if not a fucking staple on late-night television, and the mere mention of Toronto is enough to get sniggers all round, with perhaps the odd question of, "What's happened to their crackhead Mayor?"
Yet an impartial panel of experts broken down by age and sex (i.e., me---because nobody is more broken down by age and sex than I) has determined that he is by far the most suitable candidate for the job. As for the personality quirks, who doesn't like a Mayor that regularly eats pussy and is proud of it?
I know a lot of people hate Ford owing to his avoidance of the Toronto gay Pride parade. I don't, and here's my reasoning. I am philosophically opposed to any sort of Pride when it comes to sexual orientation, and this purely because what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. Although I disagree with homosexual practices, I don't believe it should be a criminal act---but neither do I believe it should be a public affair. On balance, I don't think heterosexual practices should be a public affair neither.
If you're gay/straight/bi/whatever... keep the dancing and kissing and fucking in the clubs and at home. Don't expose the rest of us to your public displays of affection. And don't scream out, "I'm gay and proud to be so!", or, for that matter, "I'm bi/straight/anything with legs and proud to be so!" Furthermore, the Pride parade is anything but family-friendly---like Ford, I find the nudity and the simulated sex acts inappropriate for a city-sponsored event.
If the Mayor should be tradition-bound to participate at a parade, it should be the Orange Order parade, or the Masonic parade. The reason for this is that the history of Toronto is inseparable from that of the Orange Order: until the 1960's, every sitting Mayor of Toronto was a dues-paying member of that fine Protestant institution, and the tradition was a great one. The Orange Order parade is one that is inoffensive to anyone but Irish republicans, obviously family-friendly, and also it is not an eyesore like Pride.
Ford, for all his flaws (and I would certainly not consider eating pussy a flaw), is nothing short of an expert when it comes to financial matters. If anyone hasn't noticed by now, Toronto is in a financial crisis. Rob Ford is the only candidate with the skill to find out what needs cutting, and the balls to say, "Last stop for the gravy train."
He also is the only one with a sensible plan for the Toronto Underground. When compared with other cities of comparable size and demographic in North America (CHICAGO!) and Europe (Vienna or Munich), Toronto has the worst damn Underground system I have ever seen in my life. Even the station design is absolutely terrible.
Allow me to sustain my digression for a bit. The original incarnation of the Toronto Underground system used a public-bathroom aesthetic. This is NOT a bad thing---the tiled look and distinctive font is very pretty. The problem came when the TTC (the commission in charge of the Underground) failed to establish an architecture department, or even an engineering department. So the new stations are a hotch-potch of various designs, including a very kitschy Museum Station.
The only problem with Ford is that he is a walking Public Relations nightmare. He drinks like a fish, eats far in excess of anything a man his size would need, speaks his mind even when the expedient thing would be to lie, and refuses to spend unnecessary cash even when this would be advisable. For instance, Ford declines to use a chauffeur; this despite the fact that he is a busy man and his job description requires reading prior to actually beginning his work day.
This, along with the poll results, has made me fear that Ford will not be elected a second time, which would be a bloody shame. The next-best man is one named John Tory. In the main, he is a good Mayoral candidate as well, with a few important differences to Ford, but also substantially similar in many ways.
Tory, like Ford, is a conservative candidate. This is a good thing. Toronto needs conservatism. The difference is that Rob Ford is the populist candidate, that is, one with a rhetoric appealing to the proletariat/the "working class"; while John Tory is the Establishment candidate, with rather upper-class speech patterns and a polished manner. The content of their agenda, however, is substantially the same; they differ, more or less, in electability and in skill set.
Oh, yes, and in Underground opinion. Ford is by far the best when it comes to the Underground. For Tory, it's merely another campaign point, whereas it's the heart and soul of the race for Rob Ford.
Tory is far more electable among the general middle-to-upper class, over-50 bracket; these are the people that are most reliable and will turn up to elections for certain. On the other hand, Ford has a fan club whose support for him can be characterised as nothing if not rabid. These supporters, however, tend not to be university-educated and tend to be in the lower income brackets; the exception of course are the people from Ford's home town of Etobicoke.
The worst option, and, sadly, a very popular one, is Olivia Chow. Now, I don't say this because she is a woman or a born Hongkie---in fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for women as well as for everyone from Hongkong (I do love that island!) She represents the (very) liberal side at the campaign, and like most liberals, she is an absolute, total, and utter fool. I loved her (now, sadly, deceased) husband Jack Layton, but Chow is, for better or worse (more worse than better), the Hilary Clinton of Canadian politics. She exerted much backroom influence on Layton, and the majority of this influence was undue and malign.
A simple look at the agenda of these three politicians tells a lot. Ford and Tory share much of the same sane and sober agenda, although they do tend to phrase certain things differently. Ford tells it like it is, while Tory tends to waffle a bit before giving a somewhat wishy-washy reply. Of course, speech patterns matter jack shit; the more important thing is the content.
For instance, Ford is willing to support the (very partial---not more than ten percent) privatisation of the Toronto Hydroelectric Corporation. Tory has reservations about "fire sales" but won't rule anything out. Chow, on the other hand, will not budge an inch and refuses to sell even a single share of Toronto Hydro.
Ford and Tory agree on the extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit (essentially, a customised Underground) for three more stops. This plan has been approved and fully funded by City Council (in American terms, the Board of Supervisors). They also agree on privatising rubbish collection east of Yonge Street, as was done west of Yonge Street by Ford. Finally, Ford and Tory both want to create a big music festival for Toronto.
Here's where they differ: Ford wants to cut the land transfer tax (good on ya, Rob!) and Tory seems to be a bit wishy-washy as per his usual style, but open to the discussion regardless. Tory and Ford both want to keep property taxes from increasing too much, but the mechanics of their respective plans are somewhat different. Ford wants to expand the Toronto Island airport, whereas Tory still has questions but is open to discussion, as usual.
Chow goes against all of this. She must be mad. First of all, she wishes to scrap the fully-funded and fully-approved Scarborough Rapid Transit extension, and build the cheaper and much less convenient surface rail track in its place, as originally envisioned. Second, she refuses to privatise rubbish collection just yet; this, in Chow speak, means she refuses to privatise it at all. Furthermore, instead of making Toronto better with a music festival like Ford and Tory want to do, she wants to make Toronto worse by pedestrianising a few very busy streets. Chow is firmly for retaining the land transfer tax and property tax as is, and against expanding the Island airport.
In short, Chow wants to return to the Miller days, when City Hall was run by the unions and when the gravy train was just chugging along. We can't have that. Especially not in these days of financial crisis. Please, please, if you're a Torontonian and hate Ford, consider voting Tory. He's a good man and will keep the city running.
Yet an impartial panel of experts broken down by age and sex (i.e., me---because nobody is more broken down by age and sex than I) has determined that he is by far the most suitable candidate for the job. As for the personality quirks, who doesn't like a Mayor that regularly eats pussy and is proud of it?
I know a lot of people hate Ford owing to his avoidance of the Toronto gay Pride parade. I don't, and here's my reasoning. I am philosophically opposed to any sort of Pride when it comes to sexual orientation, and this purely because what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom. Although I disagree with homosexual practices, I don't believe it should be a criminal act---but neither do I believe it should be a public affair. On balance, I don't think heterosexual practices should be a public affair neither.
If you're gay/straight/bi/whatever... keep the dancing and kissing and fucking in the clubs and at home. Don't expose the rest of us to your public displays of affection. And don't scream out, "I'm gay and proud to be so!", or, for that matter, "I'm bi/straight/anything with legs and proud to be so!" Furthermore, the Pride parade is anything but family-friendly---like Ford, I find the nudity and the simulated sex acts inappropriate for a city-sponsored event.
If the Mayor should be tradition-bound to participate at a parade, it should be the Orange Order parade, or the Masonic parade. The reason for this is that the history of Toronto is inseparable from that of the Orange Order: until the 1960's, every sitting Mayor of Toronto was a dues-paying member of that fine Protestant institution, and the tradition was a great one. The Orange Order parade is one that is inoffensive to anyone but Irish republicans, obviously family-friendly, and also it is not an eyesore like Pride.
Ford, for all his flaws (and I would certainly not consider eating pussy a flaw), is nothing short of an expert when it comes to financial matters. If anyone hasn't noticed by now, Toronto is in a financial crisis. Rob Ford is the only candidate with the skill to find out what needs cutting, and the balls to say, "Last stop for the gravy train."
He also is the only one with a sensible plan for the Toronto Underground. When compared with other cities of comparable size and demographic in North America (CHICAGO!) and Europe (Vienna or Munich), Toronto has the worst damn Underground system I have ever seen in my life. Even the station design is absolutely terrible.
Allow me to sustain my digression for a bit. The original incarnation of the Toronto Underground system used a public-bathroom aesthetic. This is NOT a bad thing---the tiled look and distinctive font is very pretty. The problem came when the TTC (the commission in charge of the Underground) failed to establish an architecture department, or even an engineering department. So the new stations are a hotch-potch of various designs, including a very kitschy Museum Station.
The only problem with Ford is that he is a walking Public Relations nightmare. He drinks like a fish, eats far in excess of anything a man his size would need, speaks his mind even when the expedient thing would be to lie, and refuses to spend unnecessary cash even when this would be advisable. For instance, Ford declines to use a chauffeur; this despite the fact that he is a busy man and his job description requires reading prior to actually beginning his work day.
This, along with the poll results, has made me fear that Ford will not be elected a second time, which would be a bloody shame. The next-best man is one named John Tory. In the main, he is a good Mayoral candidate as well, with a few important differences to Ford, but also substantially similar in many ways.
Tory, like Ford, is a conservative candidate. This is a good thing. Toronto needs conservatism. The difference is that Rob Ford is the populist candidate, that is, one with a rhetoric appealing to the proletariat/the "working class"; while John Tory is the Establishment candidate, with rather upper-class speech patterns and a polished manner. The content of their agenda, however, is substantially the same; they differ, more or less, in electability and in skill set.
Oh, yes, and in Underground opinion. Ford is by far the best when it comes to the Underground. For Tory, it's merely another campaign point, whereas it's the heart and soul of the race for Rob Ford.
Tory is far more electable among the general middle-to-upper class, over-50 bracket; these are the people that are most reliable and will turn up to elections for certain. On the other hand, Ford has a fan club whose support for him can be characterised as nothing if not rabid. These supporters, however, tend not to be university-educated and tend to be in the lower income brackets; the exception of course are the people from Ford's home town of Etobicoke.
The worst option, and, sadly, a very popular one, is Olivia Chow. Now, I don't say this because she is a woman or a born Hongkie---in fact, I have nothing but the utmost respect for women as well as for everyone from Hongkong (I do love that island!) She represents the (very) liberal side at the campaign, and like most liberals, she is an absolute, total, and utter fool. I loved her (now, sadly, deceased) husband Jack Layton, but Chow is, for better or worse (more worse than better), the Hilary Clinton of Canadian politics. She exerted much backroom influence on Layton, and the majority of this influence was undue and malign.
A simple look at the agenda of these three politicians tells a lot. Ford and Tory share much of the same sane and sober agenda, although they do tend to phrase certain things differently. Ford tells it like it is, while Tory tends to waffle a bit before giving a somewhat wishy-washy reply. Of course, speech patterns matter jack shit; the more important thing is the content.
For instance, Ford is willing to support the (very partial---not more than ten percent) privatisation of the Toronto Hydroelectric Corporation. Tory has reservations about "fire sales" but won't rule anything out. Chow, on the other hand, will not budge an inch and refuses to sell even a single share of Toronto Hydro.
Ford and Tory agree on the extension of the Scarborough Rapid Transit (essentially, a customised Underground) for three more stops. This plan has been approved and fully funded by City Council (in American terms, the Board of Supervisors). They also agree on privatising rubbish collection east of Yonge Street, as was done west of Yonge Street by Ford. Finally, Ford and Tory both want to create a big music festival for Toronto.
Here's where they differ: Ford wants to cut the land transfer tax (good on ya, Rob!) and Tory seems to be a bit wishy-washy as per his usual style, but open to the discussion regardless. Tory and Ford both want to keep property taxes from increasing too much, but the mechanics of their respective plans are somewhat different. Ford wants to expand the Toronto Island airport, whereas Tory still has questions but is open to discussion, as usual.
Chow goes against all of this. She must be mad. First of all, she wishes to scrap the fully-funded and fully-approved Scarborough Rapid Transit extension, and build the cheaper and much less convenient surface rail track in its place, as originally envisioned. Second, she refuses to privatise rubbish collection just yet; this, in Chow speak, means she refuses to privatise it at all. Furthermore, instead of making Toronto better with a music festival like Ford and Tory want to do, she wants to make Toronto worse by pedestrianising a few very busy streets. Chow is firmly for retaining the land transfer tax and property tax as is, and against expanding the Island airport.
In short, Chow wants to return to the Miller days, when City Hall was run by the unions and when the gravy train was just chugging along. We can't have that. Especially not in these days of financial crisis. Please, please, if you're a Torontonian and hate Ford, consider voting Tory. He's a good man and will keep the city running.
The year in review
Alright, so, fuck it. I've decided to start blogging again, and since a lot has happened in the Kafkaesque goatfuck that is modern Anglo-Canadian politics, I guess I'll take it one step at a motherfucking time.
First off, the Ontario election. I liked Hudak. I hoped that he'd win. I mean, I know he looks like a weasel but he had a budget plan that involved actually saving money, something that the province of Ontario so desperately needs. The other serious contender was a bull dyke named Kathleen Wynne, whose idea of budgeting was "spend money to save money". I see no problem with that idea, except for EVERY FUCKING WORD OF IT! You can NOT spend money left and right, money that you don't fucking have, and expect any sort of profit on this borrowed dosh to overshadow the inevitable fucking INTEREST that borrowing generates!
Like, look. Two men lose their jobs and need money. They have to make money to survive. One man gets an even more high-paying job, and tightens his belt so this doesn't happen in future. The other man goes to a cash point, withdraws $250 from his Barclaycard, and then says, "Hey, look, I've made money." NO YOU HAVEN'T.
Wynne didn't even spend money where it counts. What she should have spent it on was a tube system for Toronto to rival London's or Manhattan's. Instead, she spent it on giving happy-ending massages to teachers, government sector workers, and the unemployable poor. The majority of this province DOES NOT work for the government... and sinking money into the public school system is never a good idea, since it tends to disappear very quickly.
Oh, yes, and she cancelled two gas plants Ontario desperately needed to save two of her party bootlickers' arses. This had the end phenomenon of a 150% hike in gas prices... because the winter in Ontario was precisely the same as the one that helped defeat Hitler's forces in Russia.
Of course, this useless cunt of a candidate won. Now, I know Ontario voters are a perverse bunch. Never in the history of Ontario has a provincial Prime Minister been of the same party as the national Prime Minister, but for once, couldn't Ontario voters vote with their brains rather than their cocks? They should at least have balanced themselves out so that there was a hung parliament... now she and her gang of knuckleheads can put any bill, even a hare-brained one like the provincial budget, forward and it'll get passed come hell or high water.
Then the whole business with Russia/the Ukraine. Another complete clusterfuck. Now, I understand that Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, with terms and conditions attached. Ukraine violated those terms and conditions. So I believe that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, especially following a popular fucking referendum, was legal and justified. But the goatfuck currently taking place in eastern Ukraine, Donbass, etc---there is no way that could even be described in the same fucking book as legal.
Now, people's rebellions are commonplace and understandable. Especially following Tymoshenko's machinations. Now, I know the old girl wasn't guilty of price-fixing all on her own, and I do know that the Russian colonial government put her in prison to the exclusion Putin supporters. This is a totalitarian tactic and one that is in opposition to everything that the word "democracy" stands for, but the fact is, that Yulia Tymoshenko is guilty of offences that would warrant the same punishment anywhere in the civilised world.
But price-fixing and collusion with illegal monopolies does not excuse the Russian government, under the despotic and iron-fisted rule of Vladimir Putin, rendering significant and material aid to rebels. But for the illegal interventions of the Putin regime, the situation in the East might well be over. Since Putin insists on goofing the floof in this area, though, we are saddled with the possibility of a Third World War. Putin's actions of fomenting unrest in the Ukraine mirror certain aspects of the actions of a particular Austrian corporal (yes, the same one Prince Charles compared him to).
Furthermore, he has not sent people who simply agree with the "ideals" (if you could call them that) behind the Anti-Maidan movement. Instead, the "potato bugs" (the pro-Russian ribbons they wear look like the elytrae of potato bugs) causing disturbances in Eastern Ukraine are mercenaries who have been paid on the order of $500 a week specifically to, as I said earlier, goof the floof. So not only is it an illegal ploy, but it is the work of a sociopath, with no ideals except cold, hard cash behind it.
One more thing that has happened is the separation referendum in Scotland. Scotchmen want to separate from the United Kingdom; on this, I hold no fixed opinion aside from a very weak "no". I am entirely willing to debate the benefits and the costs of separating, as I really and truly hold no major opinion. Yes, I'd like the Kingdom to remain United till the stars fall from the sky, but it is simply an ideal, rather than some deep-seated fucking conviction or something.
On the other hand, though, there have been some extremely dirty tactics from proponents on both sides. I use Twitter to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements of the "Yes" cause. These include the First Minister of Scotland, Alexander Salmond (whom I refer to as Fish) and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (whom I refer to as Fish Number Two). If I choose to air my dissatisfaction with these two individuals, my tweet is almost instantly picked up by the "Britnat Abuse Bot", a COMPUTER PROGRAM rebroadcasting "abuse" of anyone connected in the least with the Yes movement. This exposes me to enormous quantities of vitriol and hate-mail in spite of the fact that I HAVE NO FUCKING OPINION ABOUT YES OR NO!!!
First of all, Salmond and his party (the SNP) have a political platform and a style of rhetoric that is xenophobic, nationalistic, hateful, and specifically anti-English. Salmond has made it absolutely and perfectly clear that, should Scotland become independent, university will remain free of charge for members of the European Union, with the single exception of England. His currency plans are unworkable and smack of a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum. He has demanded that the British government establish a pound-sterling currency union; as he was roundly shot down by damn near everyone who fucking mattered more than a rabbit's fart in the Grand Scheme of Things, he simply said that he'll use the pound anyway, drag England (for it will be the United Kingdom no more) into a currency quagmire that it wants no part of and would have absolutely no control over, and essentially told the British government to kiss his morbidly obese arse.
And then comes the kicker. It was widely reported that Salmond and his SNP cronies personally "discouraged" certain powerful financial corporations from delivering an official, published opinion on Scotch independence. Reportedly, Salmond's telephone call was "forceful" and designed to "discourage... from saying anything". In plain English, what this means is that Salmond PERSONALLY EXTORTED LARGE BANKS INTO SHUTTING UP. He called them and most likely screamed unprintable obscenities and threats at a nominally independent coalition of banks. Heads of free and democratic countries DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS!!! Of course, the wonderful and magical SNP put a great spin on this: one of their mouthpieces said, basically, that Fish had been making sure that anything published was neutral and properly balanced. Well, then, I pray that God does not choose to become neutral.
What happened was extortion, pure and simple. If it had been Labour doing this, or Conservatives, or even fucking UKIP, they would be locked up and the key eaten (not merely thrown away) at the behest of the SNP. But because Saint Fish is doing this, nothing will ever come of it.
And all this has devolved into a culture of intimidation and hate. I remarked on Twitter that automatic accession of a separate Scotland to the European Union would be impossible. Two European presidents (as in heads of the European Union as a whole) had agreed with me: first Barroso and then Juncker. I was bombarded with a torrent of questions and hate mail. The first was rather easily dealt with. I don't mind answering questions. Many of them asked me to point to a specific EU law that agreed with me. I couldn't, I'll be the first to say, and that is because European law is such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it requires a degree so far beyond your regular Cambridge BA and that it is offered only at one tiny institution in Europe. This is why we have specialised civil servants such as Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker.
But when I was honest and up-front with this fact, and the fact that every major newspaper and the majority of government documentation on this issue seemed either to agree with me or simply not to disagree with me, I was labelled an "Anglo Canuck" (don't mind that, I'm proud to be an Anglo Canuck!) and a "member of the Village Idiot Club" (I am neither from a village, nor am I an idiot, so fuck you, fucking cunt.)
I'm just sick and tired of this shit. Debate intelligently or just why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP.
First off, the Ontario election. I liked Hudak. I hoped that he'd win. I mean, I know he looks like a weasel but he had a budget plan that involved actually saving money, something that the province of Ontario so desperately needs. The other serious contender was a bull dyke named Kathleen Wynne, whose idea of budgeting was "spend money to save money". I see no problem with that idea, except for EVERY FUCKING WORD OF IT! You can NOT spend money left and right, money that you don't fucking have, and expect any sort of profit on this borrowed dosh to overshadow the inevitable fucking INTEREST that borrowing generates!
Like, look. Two men lose their jobs and need money. They have to make money to survive. One man gets an even more high-paying job, and tightens his belt so this doesn't happen in future. The other man goes to a cash point, withdraws $250 from his Barclaycard, and then says, "Hey, look, I've made money." NO YOU HAVEN'T.
Wynne didn't even spend money where it counts. What she should have spent it on was a tube system for Toronto to rival London's or Manhattan's. Instead, she spent it on giving happy-ending massages to teachers, government sector workers, and the unemployable poor. The majority of this province DOES NOT work for the government... and sinking money into the public school system is never a good idea, since it tends to disappear very quickly.
Oh, yes, and she cancelled two gas plants Ontario desperately needed to save two of her party bootlickers' arses. This had the end phenomenon of a 150% hike in gas prices... because the winter in Ontario was precisely the same as the one that helped defeat Hitler's forces in Russia.
Of course, this useless cunt of a candidate won. Now, I know Ontario voters are a perverse bunch. Never in the history of Ontario has a provincial Prime Minister been of the same party as the national Prime Minister, but for once, couldn't Ontario voters vote with their brains rather than their cocks? They should at least have balanced themselves out so that there was a hung parliament... now she and her gang of knuckleheads can put any bill, even a hare-brained one like the provincial budget, forward and it'll get passed come hell or high water.
Then the whole business with Russia/the Ukraine. Another complete clusterfuck. Now, I understand that Crimea was a gift to Ukraine by Khrushchev, with terms and conditions attached. Ukraine violated those terms and conditions. So I believe that the annexation of Crimea by Russia, especially following a popular fucking referendum, was legal and justified. But the goatfuck currently taking place in eastern Ukraine, Donbass, etc---there is no way that could even be described in the same fucking book as legal.
Now, people's rebellions are commonplace and understandable. Especially following Tymoshenko's machinations. Now, I know the old girl wasn't guilty of price-fixing all on her own, and I do know that the Russian colonial government put her in prison to the exclusion Putin supporters. This is a totalitarian tactic and one that is in opposition to everything that the word "democracy" stands for, but the fact is, that Yulia Tymoshenko is guilty of offences that would warrant the same punishment anywhere in the civilised world.
But price-fixing and collusion with illegal monopolies does not excuse the Russian government, under the despotic and iron-fisted rule of Vladimir Putin, rendering significant and material aid to rebels. But for the illegal interventions of the Putin regime, the situation in the East might well be over. Since Putin insists on goofing the floof in this area, though, we are saddled with the possibility of a Third World War. Putin's actions of fomenting unrest in the Ukraine mirror certain aspects of the actions of a particular Austrian corporal (yes, the same one Prince Charles compared him to).
Furthermore, he has not sent people who simply agree with the "ideals" (if you could call them that) behind the Anti-Maidan movement. Instead, the "potato bugs" (the pro-Russian ribbons they wear look like the elytrae of potato bugs) causing disturbances in Eastern Ukraine are mercenaries who have been paid on the order of $500 a week specifically to, as I said earlier, goof the floof. So not only is it an illegal ploy, but it is the work of a sociopath, with no ideals except cold, hard cash behind it.
One more thing that has happened is the separation referendum in Scotland. Scotchmen want to separate from the United Kingdom; on this, I hold no fixed opinion aside from a very weak "no". I am entirely willing to debate the benefits and the costs of separating, as I really and truly hold no major opinion. Yes, I'd like the Kingdom to remain United till the stars fall from the sky, but it is simply an ideal, rather than some deep-seated fucking conviction or something.
On the other hand, though, there have been some extremely dirty tactics from proponents on both sides. I use Twitter to express my dissatisfaction with certain elements of the "Yes" cause. These include the First Minister of Scotland, Alexander Salmond (whom I refer to as Fish) and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon (whom I refer to as Fish Number Two). If I choose to air my dissatisfaction with these two individuals, my tweet is almost instantly picked up by the "Britnat Abuse Bot", a COMPUTER PROGRAM rebroadcasting "abuse" of anyone connected in the least with the Yes movement. This exposes me to enormous quantities of vitriol and hate-mail in spite of the fact that I HAVE NO FUCKING OPINION ABOUT YES OR NO!!!
First of all, Salmond and his party (the SNP) have a political platform and a style of rhetoric that is xenophobic, nationalistic, hateful, and specifically anti-English. Salmond has made it absolutely and perfectly clear that, should Scotland become independent, university will remain free of charge for members of the European Union, with the single exception of England. His currency plans are unworkable and smack of a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum. He has demanded that the British government establish a pound-sterling currency union; as he was roundly shot down by damn near everyone who fucking mattered more than a rabbit's fart in the Grand Scheme of Things, he simply said that he'll use the pound anyway, drag England (for it will be the United Kingdom no more) into a currency quagmire that it wants no part of and would have absolutely no control over, and essentially told the British government to kiss his morbidly obese arse.
And then comes the kicker. It was widely reported that Salmond and his SNP cronies personally "discouraged" certain powerful financial corporations from delivering an official, published opinion on Scotch independence. Reportedly, Salmond's telephone call was "forceful" and designed to "discourage... from saying anything". In plain English, what this means is that Salmond PERSONALLY EXTORTED LARGE BANKS INTO SHUTTING UP. He called them and most likely screamed unprintable obscenities and threats at a nominally independent coalition of banks. Heads of free and democratic countries DO NOT FUCKING DO THIS!!! Of course, the wonderful and magical SNP put a great spin on this: one of their mouthpieces said, basically, that Fish had been making sure that anything published was neutral and properly balanced. Well, then, I pray that God does not choose to become neutral.
What happened was extortion, pure and simple. If it had been Labour doing this, or Conservatives, or even fucking UKIP, they would be locked up and the key eaten (not merely thrown away) at the behest of the SNP. But because Saint Fish is doing this, nothing will ever come of it.
And all this has devolved into a culture of intimidation and hate. I remarked on Twitter that automatic accession of a separate Scotland to the European Union would be impossible. Two European presidents (as in heads of the European Union as a whole) had agreed with me: first Barroso and then Juncker. I was bombarded with a torrent of questions and hate mail. The first was rather easily dealt with. I don't mind answering questions. Many of them asked me to point to a specific EU law that agreed with me. I couldn't, I'll be the first to say, and that is because European law is such a complete and utter clusterfuck that it requires a degree so far beyond your regular Cambridge BA and that it is offered only at one tiny institution in Europe. This is why we have specialised civil servants such as Mr Barroso and Mr Juncker.
But when I was honest and up-front with this fact, and the fact that every major newspaper and the majority of government documentation on this issue seemed either to agree with me or simply not to disagree with me, I was labelled an "Anglo Canuck" (don't mind that, I'm proud to be an Anglo Canuck!) and a "member of the Village Idiot Club" (I am neither from a village, nor am I an idiot, so fuck you, fucking cunt.)
I'm just sick and tired of this shit. Debate intelligently or just why don't you SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Is the DEA serious?
Last year, history was made in two American states, Washington and Colorado: through the process of democracy and what is known as an "initiative", the personal use of marihuana was made legal. Legalisation was pursued and passed by the wishes of the citizens, rather than by politicians.
Now, eight former Drug Czars (chieves of the Drug Enforcement Agency), through an "advocacy" organisation named "Save Our Society from Drugs", are urging the President to crack down on this. For the love of God, Jesus, and all that's holy, why?! These idiots are criticising the Obama regime because it isn't fast-tracking a lawsuit to once again make marihuana illegal. The only right fucking thing that the current regime is doing, and these dumbfucks are pressuring Obama to reverse it? Fuckers.
One of these idiots, named Peter Bensinger, said that he was "afraid" that the D.O.J. will do nothing and say nothing, which will lead to marihuana being legal in these two states (maybe that's the point, you wanker!) and it could even lead to legalisation in other states too. Which would be a big deal why? Then he puts his foot in his mouth yet again, as he says that the Washington and Colorado lawmakers are committing a federal crime.
Bensinger was drug czar under Ford, Carter, and Reagan; the federal drug control law (the Controlled Substances Act) was his baby, as well as John Bartels, who preceded him under Nixon and who was initially responsible for the CSA's enforcement.
The reason they feel this way is understandable, but it doesn't make it right. As champions of this failed drug policy, they don't want to admit that it was costly and ineffective, and that they were wrong; unfortunately, affecting millions of people because you don't want to be wrong is not exactly fair.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Senate_Judiciary_letter-version-2.pdf
Now, eight former Drug Czars (chieves of the Drug Enforcement Agency), through an "advocacy" organisation named "Save Our Society from Drugs", are urging the President to crack down on this. For the love of God, Jesus, and all that's holy, why?! These idiots are criticising the Obama regime because it isn't fast-tracking a lawsuit to once again make marihuana illegal. The only right fucking thing that the current regime is doing, and these dumbfucks are pressuring Obama to reverse it? Fuckers.
One of these idiots, named Peter Bensinger, said that he was "afraid" that the D.O.J. will do nothing and say nothing, which will lead to marihuana being legal in these two states (maybe that's the point, you wanker!) and it could even lead to legalisation in other states too. Which would be a big deal why? Then he puts his foot in his mouth yet again, as he says that the Washington and Colorado lawmakers are committing a federal crime.
Bensinger was drug czar under Ford, Carter, and Reagan; the federal drug control law (the Controlled Substances Act) was his baby, as well as John Bartels, who preceded him under Nixon and who was initially responsible for the CSA's enforcement.
The reason they feel this way is understandable, but it doesn't make it right. As champions of this failed drug policy, they don't want to admit that it was costly and ineffective, and that they were wrong; unfortunately, affecting millions of people because you don't want to be wrong is not exactly fair.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Senate_Judiciary_letter-version-2.pdf
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Why I hate Israeli politics
The dirtiness of politics does not faze me; it never has, and it never will. The sheer number of backroom deals that take place in jurisdictions all over the world are simply the name of the game. Pure insanity, however, is quite surprising: on one hand, there are countries like Iran since the revolution, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Cuba... and then, there's Israel. It's not that Israel is a country lacking in democracy. It isn't. When you delve underneath the surface, though, you start to see that politics in Israel is so far gone from either the British model or the European model that it's almost
incomprehensible.
A lot of this stems from the way the sheeple... erm, people... of the great flock named the Holy Land elect the man that will lead them. In any country, this is called an electoral system. Great Britain, Canada, and the United States of America use a system called first-past-the-post. America holds presidential elections separate from parliamentary ones, and there is a system to figure out who will be the presidential candidate (this is called a primary election), but when it comes time to pick the Supreme Emperor of the Universe, this is still first-past-the-post. This system is simple. Really simple. It's so simple even a stoner could understand it, and this is why athletic races use this system too.
In first-past-the-post, the country is divided up into little chunks, and the candidate who gets the most votes in his little chunk wins. You can only vote for one person. It's the same system as the Olympics. A race is run for the 100-metre sprint, Usain Bolt gets the gold; another race is run for the quarter mile, Michael Johnson gets the gold; yet another race is run for shot put, Tomasz Majewski gets the gold, and so on. Whichever political party wins the most races gets to pick Prime Minister. Simple, eh?
Israeli elections don't work like that. They use a system called full proportional representation; they are in fact the /only/ jurisdiction in which this is the case. Whenever you watch vote results in a country other than Israel, you'll get something called the popular vote. The Israelis don't broadcast this (well, they do, but it's not called that); in Israel, the popular vote is called "who won". It's the most democratic system in the world. The way Israeli elections run is simple, too. Far simpler than European elections (some of which require the use of a computer to find the winner). Instead of cutting the country up into little chunks, everybody votes as one big chunk. If, say, 25 per cent. of people vote for Likud, 25 per cent. of seats in Parliament will go to Likud. This means that any party with at least /some/ support will get a seat.
Here's the kicker though. Israel is a country with more than its fair share of villages, and every last one of these villages has an idiot or two to go with it. When these village idiots go to cast their ballots, hilarity ensues. A village idiot won't vote for a party like the Republicans or the Democrats. I'm a Thatcherite Conservative, but I can understand why someone would vote Democrat; this is why we have opposition in Parliament. As I wrote earlier, any party with a couple people willing to listen will get into Parliament, so you can pretty much count on Israel's version of the Fascists getting in... and, to balance it out, some Communists too. These still aren't village idiot parties. The Fascists were right in a lot of ways; look at Germany under Hitler. Certainly, his foreign policy needed work, and his anti-Semitism and his brutal eugenics programmes (though eugenics, the art and science of improving the world through selective breeding, itself isn't a bad thing). The Commies had it right too.
But suppose you had a party headed by Rick Santorum, separate and distinct from the Republicans. Their agenda consists of fervently support of a bill against freedom of "choice" (abortion), and opposition to bills separating church and state, legalising the possession of marihuana, for medical reasons or otherwise, and permitting the marriage of two same-sex individuals; for all other issues, any member is free to vote according to their own, personal beliefs (no party line). Say you had a Ku Klux Klan party too: they'd have a big foreign agenda to police other countries, and they'd naturally support apartheid and oppose immigration; again, no party line otherwise. To top it all off, say there was a Legalise It party, with its sole party line being the legalisation of all recreational drugs, with absolutely no party line for any other issue. Of course, only the village idiot would vote for any of these parties. Now, Canada, the U. S. of A., and a lot of European countries have parties like these, but they don't stand a chance of getting into Parliament, so their influence is pretty fucking low. With Israel's fairly big number of village idiots and its crazy electoral regime, all of these are represented in Parliament. Now, you're getting /close/ to the political situation in Israel.
Of course with a country full of immigrants from all over the world, with radically different views on basically everything, and with voting preferences to match, there will be a million parties in Parliament after this goatfuck is all over and done with. So, the chance of a clear leader emerging is roughly equal to the chance of pigs flying... out of my anus. Backroom chat time! So, you end up with a couple of relatively big parties sitting at a table and trying to figure out exactly which of the village idiot parties, and here are the key words, do not contradict their major party lines. Fun, eh?
With politics being what they are, anywhere in the world, every party has to make concessions. For instance, to gain the support of socially conservative voters, Mitt Romney (whose convictions are on the pro-choice side) had to join the pro-life cause. Now you add the extra layer of insanity that occurs in the Holy Land. Say the "Santorumites" (Shas) want to table a bill that will introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for marihuana possession, and another one that will require all television and wireless stations to broadcast two hours a day of content made in Israel; the "Republicans" (Likud) will vote yes, but only if Shas votes yes to attack Palestine. This is why Israel's political system is such a quagmire, yet it stands as the most democratic system in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)